Traditionally, healthcare providers have kept all of their patients' information in paper filing systems. That patient information includes, but is not limited to, patients' demographic information (e.g., age, weight, gender, race, income, and geographic location) and health-related information (e.g., clinician documentation of observations, thoughts and actions, treatments administered, patient history, medication and allergy lists, vaccine administration lists, laboratory reports, X-rays, charts, progress notes, consultation reports, procedure notes, hospital reports, correspondence, and test results). The healthcare providers that keep that patient information include, but are not limited to, physicians—Doctor of Medicine (MD) or Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine (DO), dentists, chiropractors, podiatrists, therapists, psychologists, physician assistants, nurses, medical assistants, and technicians.
The manual, paper-based practice of keeping a patient's information, however, is a very inefficient, labor-intensive process requiring many checks and balances to ensure accurate processing of the information and requiring a significant amount of the healthcare provider's time that could otherwise be spent with the patient. Accordingly, electronic medical records (EMRs), Electronic Health Records (EHRs), and Personal Health Records (PHRs) have been developed to provide many of the functionalities and features of paper filing systems in an electronic, paperless format. Systems using EMRs, EHRs, and PHRs have been developed to streamline clinical, financial, and administrative information; to streamline workflow processes; and to improve coding and billing accuracy.
An EMR is an electronic record of patient information that can be created, gathered, managed, and consulted by the authorized clinicians and staff at the specific healthcare provider that creates the record. An EHR is an electronic record of patient information that conforms to nationally recognized interoperability standards and that can be created, managed, and consulted by authorized clinicians and staff at the healthcare provider that creates the record as well as those at other healthcare provider sites. And, a PHR is an electronic record of patient information that conforms to nationally recognized interoperability standards and that can be drawn from multiple sources while being managed, shared, and controlled by the patient to whom it belongs. Accordingly, EMRs are aimed primarily at the efficient management of multiple records in a single healthcare provider's practice, while EHRs and PHRs are aimed primarily at integrating multiple data sources into each electronic record.
The nationally recognized interoperability standards for EHRs are currently endorsed by the Healthcare Information Technology Standards Panel (HTISP) and certified by the Certification Commission for Healthcare Information Technology (CCHIT). Those standards require EHRs to have the ability to communicate and exchange data accurately, effectively, securely, and consistently with different information technology systems, software applications, and networks in various settings such that the clinical or operational purpose and meaning of the data are preserved and unaltered as that data is exchanged. Thus, while an EMR is generally characterized as an electronic version of a physician's paper record, an EHR is characterized as a more comprehensive record containing additional data integrated to and from other sources. EHRs are further characterized as being either “basic” or “fully functional.” A basic EHR includes patient demographics, problem lists, clinical notes, orders for prescription, and viewing laboratory and imaging results. A fully functional EHR includes patient demographics, problem lists, clinical notes, medical history and follow-up, orders for prescriptions, orders for tests, prescription orders sent electronically, laboratory and imaging results, warnings of drug interactions or contraindications, out-of-range test levels, and reminders for guideline-based interventions.
Most of the commercially available EMR and EHR systems, however, have not been well received by healthcare providers. In fact, according to a 2008 survey conducted by the National Center for Health Services (NCHS), a division of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), while about 40% of U.S. office-based physicians reported using EMR systems, only 17% reported using basic EHR systems, and only 4% reported using fully functional EHR systems. Part of the problem with traditional FAR systems is that many of the vendors of those systems have resisted making their software capable of exporting and importing patient information using uniform electronic messaging, document, and form management standards (e.g., the Health Level Seven (HL7) messaging standard, the Continuity of Care Document (CCD) document standard, and the Retrieve Form for Data Capture (RFD) form management standard).
At their core, EMR and EHR systems include large-capacity databases that contain patient information stored in structured, relational tables of searchable data. But, when that data is not captured and stored using uniform, standardized medical vocabularies and it is not transmitted using uniform messaging, document, and form management standards, it is of little use outside of the system in which the data is stored unless custom interfaces are designed to connect that system to other systems so that data can be shared therebetween. The process of developing different interfaces between the disparate formats used by different vendors is expensive and difficult. Moreover, the interfaces are also costly and labor-intensive to maintain.
The problem of interfacing different EHR systems is exacerbated by the fact that, in the present health care system, most patient visits are to small, self-contained practices that often treasure their autonomy and are unwilling and/or unable to acquire EHR systems unless each of those systems is individually tailored to the narrow objectives of each specific self-contained practice. Accordingly, most EHR vendors have been forced to provide healthcare providers with individually customized systems that employ stand-alone features and functions on the basis of what a specific practice group wants and needs. Accordingly, similar practice groups in adjacent counties may have very different system features and functions based on their different priorities. Thus, the various existing systems are not well suited for interaction and data exchange with each other, or for maintaining information that would be useful to the other systems, and the data collected by the different practice groups using EHR systems is therefore severely fragmented.
In addition, the enactment of the privacy and security regulations of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) has caused major changes in the way physicians and medical centers operate. Implementation of those regulations increased the overall amount of paperwork and the overall costs required for healthcare providers to operate. And, the complex legal implications associated with those regulations have caused concerns with compliance among healthcare providers. With regard to researchers, the HIPAA regulations have hindered their ability to perform retrospective, chart-based research as well as their ability to prospectively evaluate patients by contacting them for follow-up surveys. The HIPAA regulations have also led to significant decreases in patient accrual, increases in time spent recruiting patients, and increases in mean recruitment costs for researchers. And, by requiring that informed consent forms for research studies include extensive detail on how the participant's protected information will be kept private, those already complex documents have become even less user-friendly.
Because most EHR systems are not capable of exporting and importing patient information in a standardized format and do not utilize functions and features suited for interaction and data exchange with other systems, the fragmented pools of data collected using those systems cannot easily be combined with the ocean of data collected across a population of patients, much less a community of patients. Accordingly, collecting data across a broad swath of patients to perform medical research, to maintain disease registries, to track patient care for quality and safety initiatives, and to perform composite clinical and financial analytics remains a time-consuming and expensive process. For example, a clinical research organization (CRO) tasked with identifying patients that satisfy certain criteria for participating in a clinical trial must still sort through voluminous libraries of paper medical records and unstructured data, spending large amounts of time and money searching for candidates. Those problems have only been exacerbated by the regulations of HIPAA. Accordingly, there is a need for a system and method of using a plurality of integrated EHR systems to systematically analyze, collect, and track patient information across a vast patient population (e.g., a community, region, state, nation, etc.) while complying with HIPAA regulations in a more user-friendly manner. In addition, there is a need for a system and method that utilizes that data to more effectively and efficiently perform clinical research, maintain disease registries, track patient care for quality and safety initiatives, and perform composite clinical and financial analytics.